|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 26, 2019 16:54:10 GMT -5
Abramson was a Federal public defender for a period of time. As such he certainly knows more about the Federal system and how it works than I do. I'll see if I can take a look at this when I get some time. Abramson has been dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" crank. He's also been assessed as a thorough journalist (he is a tenure-track professor of Communications at University of New Hampshire) who documents his work. I suspect it depends on your perspective as to which characterization you'll accept. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 26, 2019 17:00:29 GMT -5
Abramson was a Federal public defender for a period of time. As such he certainly knows more about the Federal system and how it works than I do. I'll see if I can take a look at this when I get some time. Abramson has been dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" crank. He's also been assessed as a thorough journalist (he is a tenure-track professor of Communications at University of New Hampshire) who documents his work. I suspect it depends on your perspective as to which characterization you'll accept. Thank you for the quick response. He certainly sounds like has enough credibility to consider what he says. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,200 
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 27, 2019 4:32:58 GMT -5
Considering how many people now refuse to vaccinate their kids or believe that the Earth is flat, I'd say online propaganda can be pretty effective! Lol...actually, put like that, you might be right! But surely anti-vacs advocates and flat Earthers are only a small, but vocal minority, aren't they? I've never seen any figures for just how many, or how few, people actually believe in that stuff. I also feel that most of those who believe in this are American, rather than it bring something that has taken hold in all Western countries. I might be wrong about that though. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,200
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 27, 2019 4:46:04 GMT -5
No, but we do know that Robert Mueller focused primarily on alleged collusion between Trump's 2016 presidential campaign team and Russia. In the 4-page summary of the investigation's conclusions, it states categorically that no evidence of that conspiracy was found. Now, obviously we know that some of Trump's aides did have contact with various Russians (including some Kremlin-linked figures), during face-to-face interactions, phone calls or exchanged e-mails -- and three of those associates of Trumps have admitted lying about the meetings or interactions. So, clearly something stinks here. But, crucially, the attorney general's summary quoted Mueller's report directly by saying, "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." As I understand it, from what I've read, the summary says that Trump committed no crime, but there is speculation that the President might still be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. However, I've also read that it's actually very hard under U.S. law to prove "corrupt intent" in cases of obstruction, so who knows? Probably Slam Bradley would know more about that than I do. Calling the 4-page summary released by the attorney general "incomplete" is factual. Calling it "biased" is...hmmmm, probably not right. The thing is, the summary is extremely limited with very carefully chosen words designed to present a certain narrative. You notice how it specifically says members of the Trump campaign specifically did not coordinate with the Russian government specifically on its election interference campaign? As in, no, DJT didn't sign a "will you please collude with me?" Valentine with Putin. That wording leaves A LOT unanswered, including people working with non-government oligarchs who are aligned with the government. We know polling data was handed over to Kilminick I believe it was? No, the conclusion this memo is trying so hard to suggest simply does not square with what we already know, and without the full context is not to be trusted. My second point is to emphasize that it is so monumentally incomplete and devoid of context that "incomplete" is not a strong enough word for it. Dude summarized 2 years in 4 pages. As for biased.. what would you call it? The AG who sent an unsolicited letter before being appointed that he does not believe a sitting POTUS is indictable have a 4 page summary of a 2 year report he has not let anyone else see yet and is saying not indictable.. the same guy known for architecting mass pardons in the past. I am happy to quibble on specific other words than bias if that is your hangup, but nothing about this summary or the guy who wrote it in any way deserving of the benefit of the doubt. Until Congress has the full report, this is not trustworthy. To be clear, I've not read the 4-page summary. Everything I'm saying is based on a BBC article that I read about it a few days ago. I'm assuming you've read it yourself, from the sound of it. I wasn't aware that it had been made available for the general public. I mean, obviously some journalists have seen it, but is there somewhere online I can view it? I only quibble about the word "biased" because a) I'm deeply skeptical of any kind of "conspiracy theory" or accusations of white washing, when it comes to official investigations (they're usually spread by people who didn't get the result they wanted or expected from an investigation), and b) because I fail to see what Mueller has to gain from presenting an inaccurate or slanted analysis of his findings. |
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,409
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 27, 2019 8:20:56 GMT -5
Considering how many people now refuse to vaccinate their kids or believe that the Earth is flat, I'd say online propaganda can be pretty effective! Lol...actually, put like that, you might be right! But surely anti-vacs advocates and flat Earthers are only a small, but vocal minority, aren't they? I've never seen any figures for just how many, or how few, people actually believe in that stuff. At first I was convinced it was so, but nowadays I fear that they may be more numerous than common sense would predict... A measles outbreak? In this day and age??? I fear the forces of obscurantism may be stronger than we suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 27, 2019 9:33:32 GMT -5
The general tone here isn't a whitewash, from Mueller; but, the Attorney General is free to bury it. Though no further indictments are called for, there is the statement that it does not exonerate Trump. NPR had a piece which talked about criminal offences and impeachable offenses, saying the two are often quite different. trump may not have committed anything that could be charged in a criminal court; but, which could be grounds for impeachment, which has a broader definition, in the Constitution. However, that is unlikely, as Pelosi and the gang recognize that it could hurt them in the election and they couldn't get a vote of removal from office, in the Senate, without a crossing of ranks. It didn't happen with either Andrew Johnson or Clinton and the impeachment and the Whitewater investigation and the ridiculous expenditure of public money hurt the GOP in the next election.
As for anti-vac wingnuts, there are more than a reasonable person would expect, in this country. Way too much airtime has been given to them by a media interested more in ratings than critical reporting, especially the daytime talk show crowds, where people like Jenny mcCarthy are trotted out and treated on the same level as a medical doctor and researcher. The media ceded its role in challenging interviewees to justify their claims with evidence, long ago. They let one side say their piece and the other spout their's and then go to commercial. it's the same in politics, labor debates, or health topics.
Flat-Earthers are more rare and left to the fringes of talk radio and the like.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 27, 2019 11:05:00 GMT -5
To be clear, I've not read the 4-page summary. Everything I'm saying is based on a BBC article that I read about it a few days ago. I'm assuming you've read it yourself, from the sound of it. I wasn't aware that it had been made available for the general public. I mean, obviously some journalists have seen it, but is there somewhere online I can view it? Ahh, gotcha. Yes, you sure can. Here you go. Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller ReportYou are correct in that I don't think anyone thinks this is a whitewash by Mueller. The issue seems to be that Barr has cherry-picked the report in his summary in such a way that paints a much better picture than is likely within. Lots of weasely wording and stuff that does not jibe with what we already know by way of actual indictments. The conclusion re: obstruction not counting if the accused is obstructing a crime they end up not being charged with is flat-out wrong. Also before he was appointed, Barr sent a letter basically saying he does not think a president can be indicted, which is considered by some as him submitting a resume of sorts to Trump. Given his history with past pardons of scandals and his appointment so late in the game with all of this context, many people are rightly calling shenanigans on his summary or at the very least saying it is insufficient and the full report is needed before any trustworthy conclusions can be drawn. The summary seems to be a sham, not the report, but since they are sitting on the report, we don't know. It is critical Congress gets the report. |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Mar 28, 2019 13:59:46 GMT -5
LOL Now this is a good one  |
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,409
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 28, 2019 14:16:05 GMT -5
LOL Now this is a good one James Bond meets Ernst Stavro Bloefeld.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 14:43:29 GMT -5
This. Is. Beautiful.
(and I agree with Schiff 100%)
|
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Mar 28, 2019 14:57:19 GMT -5
This. Is. Beautiful. (and I agree with Schiff 100%) This is hilarious He just digs himself in deeper and deeper. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 28, 2019 16:19:29 GMT -5
This is hilarious He just digs himself in deeper and deeper. Oh, did Trump Tweet something again? |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Mar 28, 2019 17:23:28 GMT -5
This is hilarious He just digs himself in deeper and deeper. Oh, did Trump Tweet something again? I wish Nothing can trigger the left more than a 20 character Trump tweet. Guy is the greatest internet troll in history, bar none. He simply tweeted “Good Morning. Have a great day” on Monday and caused a shitstorm lol. He’s living in you guys’ heads, rent free, 24/7. |
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,409
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 28, 2019 18:30:53 GMT -5
Oh, did Trump Tweet something again? I wish Nothing can trigger the left more than a 20 character Trump tweet. Guy is the greatest internet troll in history, bar none. He simply tweeted “Good Morning. Have a great day” on Monday and caused a shitstorm lol. He’s living in you guys’ heads, rent free, 24/7. That is true, alas. The standard line regarding that type of character is “don’t feed the troll”, but if we can’t do it with random strangers who claim online that the Earth is flat or that we never went to the moon, what chance do we have against the president of the United States? |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Mar 28, 2019 18:58:19 GMT -5
I wish Nothing can trigger the left more than a 20 character Trump tweet. Guy is the greatest internet troll in history, bar none. He simply tweeted “Good Morning. Have a great day” on Monday and caused a shitstorm lol. He’s living in you guys’ heads, rent free, 24/7. That is true, alas. The standard line regarding that type of character is “don’t feed the troll”, but if we can’t do it with random strangers who claim online that the Earth is flat or that we never went to the moon, what chance do we have against the president of the United States? I tend to agree Bottom line, if many on the far left wouldn’t have gone to complete hysterics over this, odds are Trump would’ve served one term and then been ousted. Now? With the insane conspiracy theories they’ve concocted over the last 2+ years, all it has served to do is galvanize Trump’s base, caused many to walk away from the Democratic Party and caused many, MANY independents to gravitate towards his camp. I don’t think this is rocket science. I think Confessor put it very well earlier. The majority of Trump supporters aren’t racist, homophobic, misogynists like many would have you believe. They make up a large constituent of Americans who have felt that their voices haven’t been heard for years and years. Hell, many white, male conservatives such as myself voted for Obama in 2008. Surely if we were just a bunch of Nazi sympathizing dickbags we wouldn’t have voted for a black liberal over a “war hero” white conservative, right? This is something that isn’t really considered by many on the modern left. Don’t tell me that I’m inherently evil because I’m white. Don’t tell me that I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth simply because of the color of my skin. This kind of crap is the very definition of racism yet it’s not counted because...you’re caucasian... That’s just beyond dumb and it seems like many on the left, or at least the far fringes (which seems to have overtaken the moderates on that side) don’t seem to understand at all. Not one iota. |
|
